1). The draft will last 25 rounds. You must draft 2 goalies, 6 defensemen, 12 forwards, a coach and 4 extra picks.

2). The time windows will be tight but reasonable.

12 hour clock for the first two rounds, (sending a shortlist to another GM highly encouraged here)

then 10 hour clock for rounds 3-6,

then 8 hour clock for rounds 7-14,

then 6 hour clock for rounds 15-20,

then 4 hour clock for rounds 21-25

One hour time window deduction for each skipped pick (two hour deduction for missing a 12 hour clock - leave a list), with a minimum 4 hour clock guaranteed regardless of deductions.

3). Trading is to be reasonably fair and balanced and lopsided trades will need to be re-worked or dropped. This is at the discretion of the trade committee.

Trading while on the clock is discouraged and will be penalized like a missed deadline, so if you do it, you better be sure that's what you want.

There is no limit to the number of trades you can make.

4). Regular season rankings MUST BE VOTED ON by at least one GM (if the team is co-GM'd) per team. The penalty if not done is a lowering in the standings because we would also be ranking our own teams in our own divisions (e.g., most teams will rank their own team 1st in their own division; if a team doesn't vote they loose out on a 1st place vote opportunity and hence their team's ranking will be lower than it could have been). All teams make the playoffs. 4th & 5th seeds play a 2-game series to narrow the field to 32.

Picksburgh selects D Gus Mortson
The more mobile of the Gold Dust Twins should be a perfect compliment to Rob Blake on my second pair with his defensive focus and ability to help out carrying the puck and in the transition game in general.

He and Ted Lindsay are in the picture above "fraternizing" despite being rivals in the 06 and now the Jim Robson division

MOrtson was one of twoo defensemen I considered before taking Krutov to finish off my first line. Good pick. 1st team All-Stars on defense aren't exactly easy to come by at this time.

Yeah I was thinking about Mortson yesterday when I picked Hitchman and figured I wouldn't get a third crack if I passed again. I definitely didn't think I'd finish my top four defenders before any lines or picking a goalie with Orr , but it just sorta fell this way.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Also re:Veinza The guy got his starting job with the Habs after their started suggested they sign him, when Vezina blanked them in an exhibition match with his local senior team featuring his two brothers. I have two of the Ron McAllister books and the writeup he has on Vezina describes that game very well, and while I'm new to this it made it seem to me that if this was a guy who if there was more known about would have consistently been going much higher in these drafts. Started with a bang and I haven't looked closely, but if a cursory glance at wikipedia says he led the NHA in GA a few times then I wouldn't be surprised if the bio TDMM puts together will show he kept it up before his untimely death. With how high some early defenders seem to have risen, particularly because the HoH projects help so much, I wonder if we'll see a similar effect for Georges. (Yeah I'm ********)

Also re:Veinza The guy got his starting job with the Habs after their started suggested they sign him, when Vezina blanked them in an exhibition match with his local senior team featuring his two brothers. I have two of the Ron McAllister books and the writeup he has on Vezina describes that game very well, and while I'm new to this it made it seem to me that if this was a guy who if there was more known about would have consistently been going much higher in these drafts. Started with a bang and I haven't looked closely, but if a cursory glance at wikipedia says he led the NHA in GA a few times then I wouldn't be surprised if the bio TDMM puts together will show he kept it up before his untimely death. With how high some early defenders seem to have risen, particularly because the HoH projects help so much, I wonder if we'll see a similar effect for Georges. (Yeah I'm ********)

I think that Benedict is better, just based on intuition, but I acknowledge that he also had an easier time of it.

I’d like to see Iain Fyffe’s points allocation results for both of them. It considers the defensive results of the team and then allocates points to the players on the team depending on the importance of their defensive position and the contribution they made (it is reputation based as well)

So, if Ottawa has 50 defensive points to go around but the defensemen are Gerard and Boucher, maybe Benedict gets just 20 of them, Gerard 18 and Boucher 12. But Montreal could have lesser results (say, 40 points) but with Cleghorn and an undrafted the points might be allocated 20-15-5 that year, basically implying Vezina was as good that season.

I’m pulling these numbers completely out of you-know-where just to illustrate what I mean. I think separating the goalie from the team is always an interesting and worthwhile, though difficult endeavor. One advantage we have with these early players, is that they were one of just 7-8 players to make a significant impact on the team, so allocating points is not rocket science. We can see how the team performed from a goals against standpoint, look at who was on the team and what we know about them, and go from there. Iain’s system may get us as close to the truth about these old goalies as we’ll ever get.

I think that Benedict is better, just based on intuition, but I acknowledge that he also had an easier time of it.

I’d like to see Iain Fyffe’s points allocation results for both of them. It considers the defensive results of the team and then allocates points to the players on the team depending on the importance of their defensive position and the contribution they made (it is reputation based as well)

So, if Ottawa has 50 defensive points to go around but the defensemen are Gerard and Boucher, maybe Benedict gets just 20 of them, Gerard 18 and Boucher 12. But Montreal could have lesser results (say, 40 points) but with Cleghorn and an undrafted the points might be allocated 20-15-5 that year, basically implying Vezina was as good that season.

I’m pulling these numbers completely out of you-know-where just to illustrate what I mean. I think separating the goalie from the team is always an interesting and worthwhile, though difficult endeavor. One advantage we have with these early players, is that they were one of just 7-8 players to make a significant impact on the team, so allocating points is not rocket science. We can see how the team performed from a goals against standpoint, look at who was on the team and what we know about them, and go from there. Iain’s system may get us as close to the truth about these old goalies as we’ll ever get.

Yeah like I said I am new and I'm not one for grandiosity so I'm not suggesting he's necessarily better than Benedict. If I had to hazard a guess as well I'd take Benedict too, but it just feels like the respect for older players like Pulford and Stuart have definitively grown after the digging was finally able to be completed. I guess I'm just saying it doesn't 'feel' right that a guy who sounds to have been so talented is still here, but that's why this process is so great.

Also I've checked out Iain's other stuff but not the ratings (I only read the HoH Stuart/Boucher/Gerard point stuff) so I'll have to make sure I look at that.

I think that Benedict is better, just based on intuition, but I acknowledge that he also had an easier time of it.

I’d like to see Iain Fyffe’s points allocation results for both of them. It considers the defensive results of the team and then allocates points to the players on the team depending on the importance of their defensive position and the contribution they made (it is reputation based as well)

So, if Ottawa has 50 defensive points to go around but the defensemen are Gerard and Boucher, maybe Benedict gets just 20 of them, Gerard 18 and Boucher 12. But Montreal could have lesser results (say, 40 points) but with Cleghorn and an undrafted the points might be allocated 20-15-5 that year, basically implying Vezina was as good that season.

I’m pulling these numbers completely out of you-know-where just to illustrate what I mean. I think separating the goalie from the team is always an interesting and worthwhile, though difficult endeavor. One advantage we have with these early players, is that they were one of just 7-8 players to make a significant impact on the team, so allocating points is not rocket science. We can see how the team performed from a goals against standpoint, look at who was on the team and what we know about them, and go from there. Iain’s system may get us as close to the truth about these old goalies as we’ll ever get.

Cleghorn was only around for a few seasons. By and large the "flying frenchmen" moniker was given to them because they were a one way team. One of the best offensive teams in the world, but poor defensively. Where as the Senators were one of the greatest defensive teams ever.

I think that Benedict is better, just based on intuition, but I acknowledge that he also had an easier time of it.

I’d like to see Iain Fyffe’s points allocation results for both of them. It considers the defensive results of the team and then allocates points to the players on the team depending on the importance of their defensive position and the contribution they made (it is reputation based as well)

So, if Ottawa has 50 defensive points to go around but the defensemen are Gerard and Boucher, maybe Benedict gets just 20 of them, Gerard 18 and Boucher 12. But Montreal could have lesser results (say, 40 points) but with Cleghorn and an undrafted the points might be allocated 20-15-5 that year, basically implying Vezina was as good that season.

I’m pulling these numbers completely out of you-know-where just to illustrate what I mean. I think separating the goalie from the team is always an interesting and worthwhile, though difficult endeavor. One advantage we have with these early players, is that they were one of just 7-8 players to make a significant impact on the team, so allocating points is not rocket science. We can see how the team performed from a goals against standpoint, look at who was on the team and what we know about them, and go from there. Iain’s system may get us as close to the truth about these old goalies as we’ll ever get.

Iain has Vezina's career score on his blog, but I don't see Benedict's. Vezina comes in 8th in his The Meritorious Men of the 1910s post, ahead of Malone and Cleghorn.

Originally Posted by JFA87-66-99
Also seventies did a really wonderful bio on him last year that really sold me on Tony Esposito being about a top 20 goalie of all-time

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seventieslord
If that’s all I did, I didn’t do as well as I thought/hoped

Sorry seventies, I didn't mean to slight you in a anyway, I think your work and knowledge around here speaks for itself. I actually have Tony Esposito ranked #13 or #14 on my all-time ranking so yeah I shouldn't have said about a top 20 ranking.

I think it's ridiculous to consider Tony Esposito, who was at best the 3rd best goalie of the 1970s (definitely behind Dryden and Parent but with Tretiak and Holecek in the mix as well) to be better than anyone who ever played prior to 1950 (edit: Or I guess anyone who played other than Benedict?)

Esposito over Brimsek is completely unjustifiable IMO. If you value longevity highly, I guess I can see Esposito over Gardiner, but considering Gardiner had a peak that had many calling him the best goalie to have ever played (up until that point which ended in 1934), I find it a real stretch to prefer Esposito to him.

I think it's ridiculous to consider Tony Esposito, who was at best the 3rd best goalie of the 1970s (definitely behind Dryden and Parent but with Tretiak and Holecek in the mix as well) to be better than anyone who ever played prior to 1950 (edit: Or I guess anyone who played other than Benedict?)

Esposito over Brimsek is completely unjustifiable IMO. If you value longevity highly, I guess I can see Esposito over Gardiner, but considering Gardiner had a peak that had many calling him the best goalie to have ever played (up until that point which ended in 1934), I find it a real stretch to prefer Esposito to him.

Considering the fact that Gardiner was always money in playoffs and Esposito ... gulp... wasn't...

Esposito over Brimsek is completely unjustifiable IMO. If you value longevity highly, I guess I can see Esposito over Gardiner, but considering Gardiner had a peak that had many calling him the best goalie to have ever played (up until that point which ended in 1934), I find it a real stretch to prefer Esposito to him.

Yes, Esposito over Brimsek is crazy talk, especially when one considers that Brimsek was probably cheated out of a first team all-star selection twice by the strange Vezina = 1st team all-star voting rules of the era, and lost another 1st team nod by a single vote to Broda.

Here's what I mean:

- Brimsek lost a close vote (12-14) in 42-43 to undrafted, in spite of being 5th in Hart voting (undrafted didn't place). But more important than the Hart voting is how the press of the era reacted to Brimsek's performance that season and the results of the all-star picks. To wit:

Returning NHL performers who have been turning up in various prairie rinks there last few weeks, concede that they have little quarrel with the all-star band of puckists collected in the Canadian Press vote this spring. They put up a stout argument on Frankie Brimsek's behalf for the goaltending assignment, but nod assent to all other choices from then on as they sum up the dream team this way:

xxxxxxx: A fine goalkeeper playing behind the strongest team in the big-league. Worthy of all-star recognition, but the hockey players' goaltender is Frank Brimsek. They unanimously point to Brimsek as the king of custodians. "Frankie is our man, " they chorus."

Detroit's xxxxxxxx can't miss winning the Vezina goal-tending award but he appears far back in the running for a National Hockey league All-Star berth...Judging by the talk of the visiting hockey masterminds, the Bruins' Frankie Brimsek still is the greatest goalie in pro hockey.

xxxxxxxxxx can not depend upon the vote of his own boss, xxxxxxx. The latter rates xxxxxx as a very good goaltender, "But when I am called upon to name the best one, I must pick Brimsek," xxxxxxx explained. "If there ever has been a better goalie anywhere at any time than Brimsek, I've never seen him."

xxxxxxx sadly confessed that Brimsek gives the Bruins a goal and a half start before they even take to the ice..."The only reason why xxxxxx has had fewer goals scored against him is because our Red Wing defensemen give him much better support than the Bruins provide Brimsek," xxxxxxx points out....xxxxxx's high opinion of Brimsek has been loudly seconded by xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx...that group is almost as enthusiastic about Brimsek as xxxxxxxx, who predicted that Frankie would be the greatest goalie in history long before he ever appeared in a major league net.

An interesting article. It is absolutely superlative praise of Brimsek, and should make it 100% clear that he was the true 1st team all-star in 42-43, if not for the apparently silly Vezina tradition.

The other time Brimsek was likely the true 1st team all-star was in 1947-48, when Brimsek lost the 1st team on a tiebreak to Vezina winner Broda (who had more first place votes), but placed 2nd in Hart trophy voting. He also lost the 1st team placement to Broda (in his only other Vezina season) by a single vote in 1940-41.

I wouldn't normally make too much of the Vezina / 1st team all-star phenomenon, but the newspaper articles make it so obvious who the better goalie was and that for whatever reason the voters stuck with the Vezina winner, anyway, that it sort of calls the entire all-star system for goalies into question for that era. But once you see the papers and realize the obvious distortion, then a lot of results start to look strange. I mean...Turk Broda was only a 1st team all-star twice in his long career, the exact same years he won the Vezina, both times beating Brimsek by the thinnest of margins.

This is all very suspicious stuff. I think Brimsek is rightfully probably a 4 time 1st team / 4 time 2nd team all-star and one can quibble about another of the 2nd teams maybe being really a 1st. He also lost two prime years to the war, and if there is ever a scenario where we should count lost war years, it is for Brimsek, who was an all-star in the five years preceding the war, and in the three years after the war.

I'll post a bit more on Brimsek later, but the more I look at this player, the more I see the greatest goaltender before Sawchuk, and a guy who may well belong on the same level as Brodeur.

I've had that undrafted and found information that said that he, Broda, and Brimsek were considered the "big 3 goalies" who were coming back from the War to finally give Durnan some competition. Undrafted, of course, couldn't even hold down a starter's job after the war, but his play leading up to it does appear to have been highly regarded.

It's been a long time since I've seen Benedict profiled and most of that was based on his stats. I'd definitely like to see what could be done now that we have google archives.

Yeah I feel fairly certain I'm going to use seventies bio as a jump off point that stastically (in seventies own words) he was at worst the Brodeur of his day. At worst to me so far he's one of the best playoff goalies ever, which makes him very valuable in this setting. But we'll see what more I can dig up on him right now/the rest of the night.

Well, looks like my night is going to be devoted to restoring the good (albeit drunken) reputation of Clint Benedict...

I don't think Brimsek getting more respect would diminish Benedict in any way. I've seen tons of praise of Benedict in old papers; he was very much the real thing. I just get the feeling when reading about Brimsek that he was a Glen Hall type of player: the defining and dominant goalie of an entire decade of hockey. Brimsek doesn't seem to have any playoff blemishes, either, and was probably the playoff here of at least one of his team's two Cups.

Boston -AP: As goes Brimsek so goes the Bruins was the watchword and little Frank came thru (sic)...When you start adding up the credits for the Stanley Cup this year the cool goalie is the answer...

Watching the whole series - from Toronto thru Detroit - there is only one logical hero and that is Brimsek... You can name more of them and the one on the tip of your tongue is Milt Schmidt...That great center was tremendous and so was xxxxxxx."

Looks to me like Brimsek had at least a couple of years in the early 40's of absolute dominance.

It seems to indicate that in 1943 when xxxxxx won the Vezina, he may not have even been the second best goalie - that he thought himself behind both Brimsek and Broda. Also interesting the bit about Brimsek handling rebounds better than Turk.

Oh Sturm that wasn't directed to you and your attempts to get Brimsek the respect he may deserve. That was towards the fact that Benedict has been questioned for pretty much the last 4 pages or so ever since Vezina was selected.

I'm not sure if anyone said Tony Esposito was better than Brimsek or Gardiner in a definitive answer. I do think Esposito is close to being in the top 15 goalies of all-time. Maybe slightly behind those two.

Sorry seventies, I didn't mean to slight you in a anyway, I think your work and knowledge around here speaks for itself. I actually have Tony Esposito ranked #13 or #14 on my all-time ranking so yeah I shouldn't have said about a top 20 ranking.

I know it wasn’t a slight, but it is disappointing to see him wait as long as he did to get selected this time. I would be even more disappointed if you didn’t select him when you did, right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe

I think it's ridiculous to consider Tony Esposito, who was at best the 3rd best goalie of the 1970s (definitely behind Dryden and Parent but with Tretiak and Holecek in the mix as well) to be better than anyone who ever played prior to 1950 (edit: Or I guess anyone who played other than Benedict?)

Mmm hmm. And right now three of the goalies who are in almost everyone’s top 5, were all active between 1993 and 2003.

And, if we’re having this ATD in 1972, the three best goalies of all-time were just active concurrently for most of the past 20 years. That doesn’t sound right, does it?

Quote:

Esposito over Brimsek is completely unjustifiable IMO. If you value longevity highly, I guess I can see Esposito over Gardiner, but considering Gardiner had a peak that had many calling him the best goalie to have ever played (up until that point which ended in 1934), I find it a real stretch to prefer Esposito to him.

What’s interesting about that, is that I don’t think you would even put Brimsek over Gardiner, would you?

Yes, Esposito vs. Gardiner is an interesting case of peak vs. longevity on the surface. But really, that makes it sound like Esposito didn’t ever have that high peak, that all he did was Brodeur his way to a long and successful regular season career. That is not the case. He was a three-time 1st-team all-star including two a decade apart. Disregard 1980 because I know you will anyway, but in the 1970 and 1972 years, Espo put up seasons as impressive as anything Gardiner ever did. This is confirmed by the all-star voting and his competition for it, the Hart voting (runner up to Orr, for example), and save percentage. He was absolutely dominant those two seasons, so characterizing him as being all about longevity without the peak is false. In between those seasons he posted a playoff for the ages, so long as you call the one flubbed shot at the end what it is – one shot.

You could say Gardiner was the undisputed best goalie in the world for the period of 1931-1934 and it would not be incorrect for me to counter by saying Esposito was the undisputed best goalie in the world for the period of 1970-1974. Where would that leave us? (answer – probably looking at competition in those years, and what they did outside of those years)

I don’t need to bore you with the lengthy list of additional times he ranked very highly in save %, minutes, and earned significant votes for the all-star teams and hart. You already know he has the sustained performance part going for him.

As for Brimsek, all I said was that there’s a case. Yeah, 8 all-star teams and all, but with 30 years separating them (and of course the much larger league Espo played in which we all know plays a factor in goalies racking up all-star team totals comparable to the oldies) it is a worthy question – is 2+6 in the 1940s better than 3+2* in the 1970s? Particularly when other factors are considered:

1. When Espo was not an all-star, he was still an excellent goaltender. Year in, year out. Voting, polls, scouting reports and stats prove it.
2. *Since we’re rewriting history I should point out that Espo deserved to be a 2nd team all-star in 1978. He posted much better personal numbers in more or less the same GP, for a team much less heavy on the defensive players. So with history rewritten, is 4+4 in the 1940s better than 3+3 in the 1970s?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoMakc

Considering the fact that Gardiner was always money in playoffs and Esposito ... gulp... wasn't...

Someone must have done a real sell job on you. Gardiner’s playoff resume is based on making the playoffs 4 times and playing 21 games. By all accounts, his 1934 was awesome but I don’t see why that extends to his other three playoffs being otherworldly, legendary or in any other way outstanding. He just did a good job.

Obviously sv% stats exist in Esposito’s time and not in Gardiner’s time. So the below is not a perfect comparison. But it is worthy of discussion what is a more impressive career-long achievement – making the playoffs 4 times in 7 years and having a weighted GAA that averaged 20% better than the league average over 21 games - or, making the playoffs 14 straight times and posting a weighted sv% 4% better than the league average, maintained over 99 games.

I think the Top-13, all the way down to Parent, is definitely better than Tony Esposito. Is anyone will make a claim for Esposito over Durnan. Durnan with the higher peak, Esposito the longer career. Both have big question mark in playoffs. I wouldn't do the claim. Chuck Gardiner is another goaltender with a short career, but his peak and playoff performances are better.

My take:
- On a list: #17, over Billy Smith and Tiny Thompson
- In the All-Time Draft, toss up between Thompson and and Esposito at #18. With the right team, I would take Grant Fuhr and undrafted over him.

Overall, I believe he got taken about where he should. I don't want to argue for 1-2 spot too high or low.

I think the Top-13, all the way down to Parent, is definitely better than Tony Esposito. Is anyone will make a claim for Esposito over Durnan. Durnan with the higher peak, Esposito the longer career. Both have big question mark in playoffs. I wouldn't do the claim. Chuck Gardiner is another goaltender with a short career, but his peak and playoff performances are better.

My take:
- On a list: #17, over Billy Smith and Tiny Thompson
- In the All-Time Draft, toss up between Thompson and and Esposito at #18. With the right team, I would take Grant Fuhr and undrafted over him.

Overall, I believe he got taken about where he should. I don't want to argue for 1-2 spot too high or low.

Wow, I typed up a long post taking issue with some of your list, then I realized that it was just the order these guys were drafted in.